Experienced journalists fearlessly reporting the truth in pursuit of the real story

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Fox News Personality Chris Wallace Disowned By Father

New York, New York - Several days after his contentious interview with former President Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace received a letter from his father, veteran journalist Mike Wallace, that informed him that he was no longer part of the family and was officially being disowned. Sources close to Mike Wallace tell Assimilated Press that he took this action in order to preserve the dignity and honor of the family name.

Apparently, the elder Wallace has been quietly fuming ever since his son accepted a job with Fox News and has told friends, "My boy is a whore. He'll do anything for money. Hell, if he wasn't my son he wouldn't even be in television. He would working at Wal-Mart as a greeter. What he knows about journalism could fit on the head of a pin and that's probably giving him more credit than he deserves."

Chris Wallace had no comment. However, a spokesperson for Fox News said that Rupert Murdoch has agreed to adopt the younger Wallace who will now be spending the holidays with the Murdoch family.

Tell me the truth. What do you people say when you pray to yourselves?Clinton was asked a reasonable question in a calm respectful manner. The response?*Indignant outrage at being asked. a.k.a. Arrogance*Distraction by accusing Chris of not asking Republicans this. a.k.a. False accusation/LIE as Chris DOCUMENTED with VIDEO*Claiming he couldn't do anything because dept.s wouldn't confirm Bin Laden's guilt. a.k.a. Blaming subordinates who, if not meeting expectations, should have been dealt with by their superior, HIM.*Demanding 5-6 times that he tried to have Bin Laden killed. a.k.a. Confessed to attemted assasination of someone he JUST said was not certain of guilt. But what's one more crime Clinton can admit with impunity?

Bob W.YeeHa is not a foreign policy. If you are going to "take out" a group of people and launch missles it is kind of important they are the right ones. If your own FBI an CIA groups cannot verify who was responsible "YET" then action really cannot be taken. On the other hand, this did occur in December and Bush took office in January. Shortly thereafter there was verification as to who was reponsible and was verified by the FBI and CIA. At that point Bush should have acted. He did nothing.